Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (
More info?)
In article <Yf6dnfKpZOYUEPffRVn-tQ@comcast.com>, frank@deford.com
says...
> > The point is that the Democrats appear to believe (if you credit their
> > rhetoric with anything more than a mulish, reflexive opposition to
> > anything Bush proposes...) that the UN Ambassador is supposed to serve
> > the UN, instead of American interests.
> As if the Republicans are any different. It all comes down to a power
> struggle between the two parties. Voting or confirming anything that would
> benefit the American people is secondary to this power trip.
>
> Don't pretend to know otherwise, or pretend that the Republicans are somehow
> immune to this.
So your point is ... that everybody does it, so it's OK?
I didn't like this nonsense any better when it was Bill Clinton's
nominees who were being stonewalled by parliamentary bullshit. *Every*
person brought before Congress to be confirmed in a government
appointment should receive an open hearing followed by an expedient up
or down vote.
Bolton's nomination represents a particularly pathetic and hilarious
episode, though, in that ... what exactly is the criticism leveled at
him? He was mean to someone? He said unkind things? If that sort of
thing is now a disqualifier for a federal posting, Washington is gonna
be mighty quiet...
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Most Republicans skipped the hearing, leaving Democrats largely
unchallenged as they assailed Bolton's knack for making enemies
and disparaging the very organization he would serve."
- Dana Milbank, Washington Post
"Uh, Dana? I'm pretty sure the organization Mr. Bolton is supposed
to be serving is *America*."
- Giftzwerg